On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 09:13:29AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> Dieter Baron <dillo@danbala.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
>
> > _ACCEPTABLE is a hack to allow official bulk builds to include
> > non-free packages we are allowed to redistribute in binary form. As
> > such, it should enable building everything we are allowed to build,
> > but not put the bulk builder at risk of license violation.
>
> So that means we should define BULK_BUILD instead of _ACCEPTABLE, and
> add code to not stop due to LICENSE if NO_BIN_ON_FTP is unset. That
> will avoid including packages that can't be uploaded in the build, and
> things that depend on them.
The official bulk builds (that result in binary packages being
uploaded to ftp.netbsd.org) are not the only users of the bulk build
framework: Many users do private bulk builds, and they should have to
set ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES (or, if they really want to disregard licenses
when building, _ACCEPTABLE). So equalling ``bulk build in progress''
with either ``disregard licenses completely' or ``don't build
NO_BIN_ON_FTP packages'' is not acceptable.
What about HONOUR_LICENSES, which defaults to YES, and
DISTRIBUTABLE_PACKAGES, which defaults to NO and if set won't build
packages with NO_BIN_ON_FTP set? The latter could be set for the
official bulk builds on slower architectures to trade less error
detection for faster builds.
> > What about packages that don't have NO_BIN_ON_FTP set but have a
> > dependency that has NO_BIN_ON_FTP set? Are they currently uploaded?
>
> They shouldn't be, because they might be a "derived work" according to
> one of the theories.
I think I agree, just to be on the save side.
> > If so, part of the result of building the restricted dependency
> > might be included in the unrestricted package (e. g. when linking
> > against a shared library) and the case is less clear by far.
>
> Or a static library; I agree that this is troublesome.
Grr, which is what I meant to say.
> At some point, we have to ask: If a license is so restrictive that
> doing a bulk build is a violation, should the package even be in
> pkgsrc? But openmotif isn't that.
Then why isn't setting LICENSE, NO_{SRC,BIN}_ON_CDROM, and, for non
open-source OSs, NO_BIN_ON_FTP enough? Why do we need
ONLY_FOR_PLATFORM at all?
yours,
dillo